Welcome to the top of the sigmoid curve.
If you were wondering what 1999 felt like WRT to the internet, well, here we are. The Matrix was still fresh in everyone’s mind and a lot of online tech innovation kinda plateaued, followed by some “market adjustments.”
I was gonna say. It’s this exactly. Plus a nice feature of Fediverse stuff is that it can scale down to hobby levels if needed. Venture funded commercial services abhor this and will compromise all kinds of things (e.g. morals, ethics) to keep going at whatever scale they’re at.
This gives me hope. It’s like we’re all finally learning how to moderate forums in this ridiculous climate.
Clearly. I’m also prepared to pay the handsome sum of $0. Where is my cabinet position?
And greedy. Can’t forget greedy.
Russia will have to surrender and disarm their nukes,
Interesting. During the Cold War, that was unthinkable, mostly because there’d be nobody to counterbalance a US monopoly on nuclear arms. Things have proliferated considerably since then, so perhaps a nuclear Russia isn’t as important. If anything, they’re proving themselves to be a liability.
Good grief. It’s like he asked ChatGPT “how do I hire people suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect?”
Dear meme-lords: I need something with much more facepalm than the Picard one. A “super facepalm” if you will. Thank you.
I’ve been trying to wrap my head around this too. Just yesterday, I was thinking “what would Mr. Rogers say/think at a time like this?”
Then it dawned on me that maybe the worst parts of society had a radically different upbringing and media exposure than myself. 1 The so-called “violent” cartoons (many of which were just toy commercials) I get and recall people keeping that stuff from their kids. But to think of banning something like (1980’s) PBS in your home, of all things. Now I understand why that messaging existed in the first place - we might be worse off right now without it.
1. Insert “we-are-not-the-same-gen-x.jpg” meme here.
I agree, and can sympathize: I lack the education to see around all those corners. That said, I think that’s all plausible were it to happen.
No idea. Maybe they’ll keep it like the Gadsden Flag holdout libertarians? “We were here first” and all that.
Honestly, I was thinking about the people out there with tattoos. There has to be at least one.
For me, the cherry on top is how the “InfoWars” name is still completely apt, for completely different reasons.
I think there’s always going to be that group of people. Another example: folks that didn’t notice that The Colbert Report was satire.
That also sounds like the kind of prank that Cards Against Humanity would pull if they had access to as much cash. I love this so much.
Pretty unlikely, right?
Very. The last time, warfare was far less asymmetric than it is now. Millions of people would need to be well past the point of “dying for their values and ideals” before that would get traction politically.
What’s the process like?
There literally isn’t one, or at least, not an official one; we’re not the EU. One spot on a map says “no” and the bigger spot on the map around it says “LOL… oh wait you’re serious?” Then they fight.
Also, the optics are very different for a state like California or any other economic powerhouse in the union. These places make up a huge chunk of the country’s GDP, so losing them would cost a massive chunk of the tax base. Plus, that would reduce the overall coastline of the remainder. Combined these outcomes are strategically “very bad”, further motivating the use of force to counter it.
So, “what in the isomorphic fuck” covers all the bases?
I mean, if that ultimately gets me a girlfriend, I’ll give it a shot. Seems like a lot of extra steps though.
Easily the best one. But does that mean:
a. Self-actualization and understanding one’s self is difficult for men due to toxic masculinity and social norms.
b. Into guys but with dubious grammar skills.
c. … both?
Maybe? We also import a shed-load of tobacco. Combined, that’s not gonna be pretty.
https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/raw-tobacco/reporter/usa
Why not both? It’s easier to force your way under and into that tent/coalition with an organized front to do the talking. A political party that has well defined goals and objectives, while speaking for a big group, is bound to be better at working within a broader coalition than what we have now.